nanog mailing list archives
Re: Question to Google
From: Todd Underwood <toddunder () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 09:20:17 -0400
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer () nic fr> wrote:
There are many zones (including your isc.org) that have several name servers dual-stacked, and they didn't notice a problem. Furthermore, since the DNS is a tree, resolution of google.com requires a proper resolution of the root and .com, both having IPv6 name servers.
"didn't notice a problem" is woefully insufficient here. how carefully was this measured? how was it measured? across what diversity of traffic. what was the threshold for "a problem" here. different use cases have different tolerances for the kinds of bad user experience that google is concerned about here, both in terms of percentage and in amount of impact. please note that google has been super aggressively implementing and promoting IPv6 for years, so implications that this is somehow related to Google dragging their feet are silly. t
So, this answer is at least insufficient.
Current thread:
- Question to Google Marco Davids (Private) (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Mark Andrews (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Stephane Bortzmeyer (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Mark Andrews (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Randy Bush (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Todd Underwood (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Matt Mathis via NANOG (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Stephane Bortzmeyer (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Todd Underwood (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Bjørn Mork (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Stephane Bortzmeyer (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Christopher Morrow (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Damian Menscher via NANOG (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Stephane Bortzmeyer (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Damian Menscher via NANOG (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Christopher Morrow (May 15)
- Re: Question to Google Mark Andrews (May 15)